TargetTalk

[quote="David LeveneI would have thought it would be much better to have a dedicated single action trigger mechanism [/quote]
Manurhin does too. Some of their models you can get SA only if you want. If I was getting one for ISSF only it's what I'd get. (Not that I've actually ever used the DA on my S&W 14 in field target. Yet.)

It really depends on how you order and word your decision tree criteria.

If you start out with by asking what kind of action the revolver has, then what you say is very true, why would you want to have any other kind?

But if you ask if the revolver accurate enough to successfully compete? Can the pistol reloaded in 1 minute or less? Can the revolver's action be adjusted to my needs for shooting ISSF Centerfire single action? The question as to whether the revolver's action, single or double, is a moot one.

Logically you might ad is the revolver able to be readily fixed or tuned up, as part of your decision criteria, as well.

Bob Wiard wrote:It really depends on how you order and word your decision tree criteria.

If you start out with by asking what kind of action the revolver has, then what you say is very true, why would you want to have any other kind?

But if you ask if the revolver accurate enough to successfully compete? Can the pistol reloaded in 1 minute or less? Can the revolver's action be adjusted to my needs for shooting ISSF Centerfire single action? The question as to whether the revolver's action, single or double, is a moot one.

Logically you might ad is the revolver able to be readily fixed or tuned up, as part of your decision criteria, as well.

One of us is missing the point and I don't think it is me. You said that you wanted a double action revolver, I questioned why not single action.

You now seem to be saying that there is a difference in the way they would be loaded. If you were to take a single action S&W Model 14 and a double action S&W Model 14 then the only difference in operation would be that you would be forced to cock the hammer on the single action.

Why would you want to chose the more complicated trigger mechanism of the double action when, for the ISSF match (which was the original question), you would probably be using it in single action mode anyway.

David Levene, I think I've found the confusion, I use the phrase double action revolver as an American speaker of English while you heard it as a English speaker of English.

If you are in the US and use the phrase single action revolver most people will think you are referring to a Colt Peacemaker type of gun, like cowboys used in the wild west. Which as you know is a very different revolver than your S&W M-14.

Now, with the exception of the Toz 49, all Modern Revolvers (current production, which alas the M14 isn't and hasn't been for some years) are designed initially in double action because more of them are sold in this configuration. Since the actions need to work in the same overall design there is very little difference between their respective lockworks. So if you want a more accurate revolver you need to ask for a modern double action revolver first.

As to why I would rather use one over the other. Please tell me why once my gunsmith adjusts it for me, for my particular use, would I even care whether its a dedicated single action or double action used in single action mode?

Maybe its time for me to enter this discussion. Over the years I have done a lot of work with Centrefire, taken a couple of Commonwealth games medals (one with a .38 revolver,one with a .32 auto) and I shoot aust Master scores (approx 575-585).
The .38 round from either a Auto or Revolver is more accurate at both 25 and 50 m than the .32.
The machine rested .38 Manurhin Match revolver will shoot approx 18mm groups all day ever day, the best .32 (and I have tried both the Manurhin and a number of Autos) will shoot about a 22mm group. But the major problem with the .32 is that it will throw a flyer, 40-50mm out of the main group (1 or 2 in a 100).
I believe (and a number of manufactures confirmed this) that it is caused by case neck tension in the thinner .32 case. To solve the problem either use new cases for Competition loads or neck anneal each time you reload.
The .32 revolver can also solve the problem if you use cast Wad cutters and heavy roll crimp into a crimp groove. Some shortened cases were tried in a Auto with roll crimps but head deformation on feeding defeated the purpose and killed the group.

Other differences between the 32 and 38, a lot of countries are not allowed the larger calibre, a lot of European makers use the same frames as their .22 and stay with a blowback design.
The .38 Autos are old designs and are now rare (Sig-Hammerli P240 and S&W model 52) if you wanted a Auto these days you may have to consider a .38 Super.
I have a Manurhin .38 and a Walther .32, I find I precision better with the Manurhin and Duel better with the Walther, the nett result is a score about the same.
I hav twice duelled a 300 both times with the Manurhin revolver, but I was also in intense training ( the revolver requires a lot of work for top scores).
I hope this does not confuse the debate-----much!

This has been a very interesting discussion. I has been interesting to hear the various opinions from all over. I hope this has answered the initial query - or has it muddied the waters further?! :)
I was pleased to be able to participate in this discussion.
Good luck,
Alex L.

(A comment to post from guest David M of Mar 20)

I appreciate your information, David. You are talking out of experience, you are well informed, and you are an upper level shooter.
The french Manurhin revolvers are considered the moct accurate of the breed in my country, and some prefer them to any of the .32 match autos for the center fire course. I do my best shooting in the duelling part with a .32 auto, however. But, no, I have never fired a 300 , David.

The excellent french Unique .32 auto has regrettably been discontinued. This auto has a reputation for better feeding reliability than most other .32s.

I find cast .32 wadcutters ok for training rapid fire (duelling), but firing from a machine rest proves that the swaged hollow base wadcutters rutinely give better accuracy. Even when the cast bullets are sorted by weight., and inspected for even the smalest imperfections.

I have started to use the relatively cheap Lee alu 6 cavity gang mold, casting 84 gns microgrooved tumble-lube wadcutters. I roll the bullets in liquid alox lube, and after drying I size them .314. Surprisingly, these bullets shoot about as accurately as any cast bullet I have tested in my .32 FAS.

I have used both in competition, and at my level, they are each more accurate than I am.
One difference that I noticed, nothing to do with competition, is that I find it easier to train with the .32. Firing 150 rounds in a practice session, even with the low velocity loads, tends to cause elbow strain. I shifted to .32 about a year ago, and now I find I can train more, with less strain. Perhaps that is why my scores have gone up with my .32.

The last time I attended a European event (CISM World Championship in Lahti, Finland), the ex-Soviet shooters were still shooting revolvers (TOZ-49's), chambered in 7.62mm Sport (similar characteristics to .32 S&W Long) for the CF event. Their scores were excellent. Incidentally, they shot semi-autos (chambered for the 7.62 Sport cartridge again) for the Military Rapid Fire event (check out http://home.tula.net/tularms/ and look at the semi-auto there; that's the model the Russians used). There must have been some special reason for not using the semi-autos in the centre fire event. Perhaps the revolvers were better!
If money were no object. I would use a Colt Python in .38 for the CF event. It would be unsuitable for the Military Rapid Fire event however.

stephen maly wrote:The last time I attended a European event (CISM World Championship in Lahti, Finland), the ex-Soviet shooters were still shooting revolvers (TOZ-49's), chambered in 7.62mm Sport (similar characteristics to .32 S&W Long) for the CF event. Their scores were excellent. Incidentally, they shot semi-autos (chambered for the 7.62 Sport cartridge again) for the Military Rapid Fire event (check out http://home.tula.net/tularms/ and look at the semi-auto there; that's the model the Russians used). There must have been some special reason for not using the semi-autos in the centre fire event. Perhaps the revolvers were better!
If money were no object. I would use a Colt Python in .38 for the CF event. It would be unsuitable for the Military Rapid Fire event however.

A colt python? Now there's a pistol that you didn't see many serious shooters using for ISSF Center Fire at the international level over the last 20, 30 or 40 years (maybe they were all bought off by the other manufacturers).

Make no mistake - a Colt Python can shoot well, but it was never popular at the 'top'.

Spencer